CAA have rights of direct prosecution (together with many other public bodies previously mentioned on here.)
Independent review by the CPS would be nice, but it’s not necessary or (I believe) possible at the moment.
They are however required to demonstrate that prosecution is in the public interest. How they demonstrate this for the majority of minor infringements made by MISTAKE I’ve no idea.
If I’m not mistaken, prosecution is not something reserved to the CPS. You, as a private individual, can prosecute someone if you’ve got good lawyers and enough money (private prosecution).
“Right of prosecution” is not “right of trial”, not “right to punish”.
PS. Only lawyers qualified in Scottish Law can appear in a Scottish Court.
(I think there is/was an exception for those qualified in some Commonwealth countries. But NOT England.)
I remember an accident in Scotland where the CAA took no action, but the Procurator Fiscal obtained a conviction. (Landing C172 bounced off a car on a private road passing a grass strip.)
I recall the video.
Was the conviction against the driver or the pilot? I would have thought that neither could reasonably have foreseen or avoided the accident.
But we digress………
Pilot was convicted. Mum and kids in Mercedes, C172 mainwheels exactly fit windscreen-to-rearwindow. Popped both out. Plane landed safely.
I suspect rubber seal glass, not bonded to metal as currently done.
Pilot should have seen the car.
December 2019 numbers are out at the usual place.
It is pretty obvious they simply reflect GA activity, which was depressed in November due to wx which was bad even by UK November standards. So the CAA’s new zero tolerance policy is just trying to smash GA into the ground; they will never reduce these numbers, especially as they keep polishing the data collection process.
They are however required to demonstrate that prosecution is in the public interest. How they demonstrate this for the majority of minor infringements made by MISTAKE I’ve no idea.
They are not actually prosecuting, however. Well, only a few cases a year. The rest are dealt with “administratively”, eventually with “temporary” suspensions against which there is no appeal.
Peter wrote:
It is pretty obvious they simply reflect GA activity, which was depressed in November due to wx which was bad even by UK November standards. So the CAA’s new zero tolerance policy is just trying to smash GA into the ground; they will never reduce these numbers, especially as they keep polishing the data collection process.
These stats don’t look egregious to me. Fairly proportionate really. And I am not sure you can criticise their data collection methods as they seem to have responded to criticism that it was too opaque no? They are now providing quite a lot of data.
Peter wrote:
The rest are dealt with “administratively”, eventually with “temporary” suspensions against which there is no appeal.
License suspensions are quite common in road traffic as well and if enough severity of the case will be done by the attending policeman on the spot. And frankly, some people particularly in road traffic incidents deserve no better.
In other cases, mostly suspension is a punishment given a while after the incident, in some you even get within reason to say when you will serve your suspension/sentence to minimize the impact. That is for first suspensions. If you get another, then it is usually enforced immediately, whereas once the due process has been completed, you get the license back counting from day one it was taken away.
The corresponding traffic violation would here be the loads of 30 km/h speed limits which pop up everywhere and partly on road bits which before were up to 80 km/h. loads of folks get photographed and sentenced on the spot, many loose their license for up to a year. There is no basis for discussion or claims against it, the photographic picture of the felony is enough.
Almost nobody appeals such things in court as it almost certainly means financial ruin. With lawyer fees and court fees, a normal citizen today is totally powerless to appeal to anything. Even an appeal letter drawn up by a lawyer will cost you more than the sentence usually. So for 99% of such cases there will be no court decision as the culprit has no money to appeal.
Consequently people become very careful in such zones. And I suppose that is the only thing you can really do in the situation with airspace in the UK. Either only fly IFR or avoid those airspaces like the proverbial plague, even if it means massive detours. Which I suppose is the whole idea behind the zero tolerance approach.
JasonC wrote:
These stats don’t look egregious to me
The measures you posted look actually extremely rational: First time you get a warning letter, if that doesn’t help you get mandatory training and only after continued/multiple infringements on multiple flights the license gets suspended.
In Germany we have the problem that the authorities fas too often fine you with money which has very different effect based on the economic situation of the pilot but has no effect on flying skills. Mandating additional training in case of airspace infringements is actually the best thing a CAA can do!
I’m always a bit baffled by exactly what “training” is required, and what it will achieve,
Pilots already know that they should not infringe, and do not need training not to do so. Virtually all infringements are mistakes or momentary lapses of attention, or distraction.
Training people how to fly will not solve human errors.
